city sizes vs 3d series sizes

bluejeans

To me, it seems like gta1 city sizes are bigger than any one city in any of the 3d series of games, even SA cities. Also, you seem to travel faster in gta1, covering more ground than in cars in the sequels, so I really get the impression that this is so. Is it true, or is the old skool 2d rendering just fooling me into thinking the maps/cities are bigger?

BenMillard

There is a GTA Modding article about units, which includes the sizes of some GTA environments. The 2D games cover about one square kilometer but the 3D games cover a lot more. In the 3D games most of the area is taken up by water, but they still have more land than the 2D games.

Faze

Also, you seem to travel faster in gta1, covering more ground than in cars in the sequels

Perhaps the reason for the quick speed in GTA1 has to be the graphics quality. GTA1 was top-down, so it runs faster then that of the 3D games. Also you didnt have much for rough terrain. In the 3D GTAs, you had plenty of roadbumps which can flip your car over in a millisecond.

All GTA had for hazards were: Stationary objects, walls, other vehicles, lower terrain.

oipolloi

There are more roads in the originals, the cities are "packed in". Also the really fast cars are really really exaggeratedly fast. I bet if you did some fiddling about with scales and complicated equations you'd find the cop cars go like 200mph XD. As for actual size though, if you tried to re-make GTA3 in GTA you'd probably only fit in Portland and a tiny bit of Staunton before running out of room